Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on October 05, 2012, 05:50:45 AM
-
http://www.canada.com/sports/Salmon+farm+activist+acquitted+defamation/7344488/story.html
-
Thanks Chris, for posting that.
Some excellent points made in his article........ "My opinion is that, sadly, the top four problems for 10 species of salmonids are: fish farms, DFO, run of river power and global warming. The last we can do little about quickly, but the other three can be addressed today with policy decisions. The Cohen Commission into Fraser sockeye collapse reconvened in December 2011 to assess whether fish farm diseases kill wild salmon. Its report is due by Oct. 30.
I'll let you know what it says. Sport fishers should pat Staniford on the back - he has withstood being sued three times over the past decade by fish farms, though never successfully - because his bottom line is to stand with wild salmon in B.C. In fairness, I don't see that fish farms need to be eradicated - they need to be on land where their density-related disease amplification affects no other fish or species. I have found more than 8,000 actual on-land farms around the world, so there is no technological or economic impediment. We need wild salmon and so do 37 species of our wild animals like bears and eagles."
Sports fishermen should not be sitting on the fence with salmon feedlots. We all need to be more vocal in opposing them.
Yes, there are other issues with wild salmon survival, however like any problem, you need to tackle the most solvable issues first. Feedlots must be moved to land!
-
The way I understood this:
Basically this says that Mr Staniford's judgements are "prejudiced, exaggerated and obstinate" and "have no balance because balance does not exist in Mr. Staniford's world" ,
but the judge excused him because he is insane and belives what he is saying.
A small thought on the Cohen commission regarding the "missing sockeye".
I spoke recently to a well know individual in the fishing industry in BC and I asked him about the missing sockeye.
He said that they were missing if I believed they ever existed.
I think we have forgotten what the word "estimate" means.
A whole bunch of taxpayer money was spent on a wild goose chase that produced nothing.
The words "Commission" and "Inquiry" scare me.
-
Yes, there are other issues with wild salmon survival, however like any problem, you need to tackle the most solvable issues first. Feedlots must be moved to land!
af, would you invest in land based salmon farms in BC?
Would you advise your clients to do so?
-
af, would you invest in land based salmon farms in BC?
Would you advise your clients to do so?
I would not as I go and catch my own, time you did too. ;D ;D ;D
-
af, would you invest in land based salmon farms in BC?
Would you advise your clients to do so?
Yes, why not.
I have one big question for salmon farm industry.
Why do they put their farms right in the path of juvenile and returning adult salmon?
Why don't they find locations, inlets, bays that have no salmon?
-
Yes, why not.
I have one big question for salmon farm industry.
Why do they put their farms right in the path of juvenile and returning adult salmon?
Why don't they find locations, inlets, bays that have no salmon?
It makes one wonder if some of them donot care about wild salmon. ::)
-
Pretty good deflection there Chris ;D I'm sure af is out enjoying the sun and will answer my questions soon.
-
Pretty good deflection there Chris ;D I'm sure af is out enjoying the sun and will answer my questions soon.
You get good at when you are in your 70th year. ::) ;D
-
I have excised five pages of relevant clauses from her ruling and you may find it on my blog, www.fishfarmnews. blogspot.com, which also contains the link to her 71-page ruling - really worth reading in its entirety
Here are some of the most relevant sections for those who do not have the time to read the entire ruling:
Immediately after posting the link to the actual ruling, Mr. Reid, like a good propagandist, helps his committed followers who seldom read a document from start to finish by providing his own filtered version. What a nice guy.
I wonder why Mr. Reid did not mention #185 in his “excised” version of events. We can see why he won the Art Downs Award now “for writing that is factual, accurate, well researched and focused on the real issues where governments, private or public companies need to be taken to task on environmental issues.” LMFAO
I'll let you know what it says.
I am sure you will let us know what the final report says, Mr. Reid. I cannot wait for more of that award-winning writing…lol.
-
af, would you invest in land based salmon farms in BC?
Would you advise your clients to do so?
Normally I charge a fee for giving financial advice, Dave..... but because you're such a nice guy...... ;D
I wouldn't invest in land based salmon farming in BC nor would I advise my clients to do so. Most of my clients are quite conservative thinking and I don't recommend small companies or start ups as part of their portfolio. In general salmon feedlots whether ocean or land based are not a good investment, as their risk profile is high.
I wouldn't recommend that they invest in tobacco companies either....
-
Normally I charge a fee for giving financial advice, Dave..... but because you're such a nice guy...... ;D
I wouldn't invest in land based salmon farming in BC nor would I advise my clients to do so. Most of my clients are quite conservative thinking and I don't recommend small companies or start ups as part of their portfolio. In general salmon feedlots whether ocean or land based are not a good investment, as their risk profile is high.
Thanks af. Interesting that although you insist on moving them on land, you consider them a poor investment. I guess that in a nutshell is why we won't see them any time soon.
-
Let's be clear Dave. This isn't a discussion about the investment value of a salmon feedlot. This is a discussion about the damage the feedlots are doing to our wild salmon......
-
Always has been :D and as usual we agree to disagree
-
More that agree with the majority of us. ;D ;D
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Sockeye+spiritual+health/7354786/story.html
-
WatershedWatch and Craig Orr have always been aligned with anti salmon farmers. Why do you think they and Routledge sampled Cultus Lake Cutthroat ... I suggest potential funding opportunities drove that little program (that could have had so much more scientific value had a control site been used); they were looking for that elusive link Ms. Morton suggested as the cause for the near extirpation of Cultus sockeye, but of course failed.
But had they found something even close to plausible huge money would have been available from well meaning but misinformed funders for their particular research ::)
Just my $.02 of course :)
-
WatershedWatch and Craig Orr have always been aligned with anti salmon farmers. Why do you think they and Routledge sampled Cultus Lake Cutthroat ... I suggest potential funding opportunities drove that little program (that could have had so much more scientific value had a control site been used); they were looking for that elusive link Ms. Morton suggested as the cause for the near extirpation of Cultus sockeye, but of course failed.
But had they found something even close to plausible huge money would have been available from well meaning but misinformed funders for their particular research ::)
Just my $.02 of course :)
Yes, good guys that really know the issue. ;D ;D ;D
-
WatershedWatch and Craig Orr have always been aligned with anti salmon farmers. Why do you think they and Routledge sampled Cultus Lake Cutthroat ... I suggest potential funding opportunities drove that little program (that could have had so much more scientific value had a control site been used); they were looking for that elusive link Ms. Morton suggested as the cause for the near extirpation of Cultus sockeye, but of course failed.
But had they found something even close to plausible huge money would have been available from well meaning but misinformed funders for their particular research ::)
Just my $.02 of course :)
Not sure I follow your arguement. So they decided for whatever reason to sample Cultas lake, and failed to find what they were looking for in your opinion, but found PVR in cut throat, which had previously never been detected in BC fresh water. Further tests genetically linked it as 99% similar to norway strains.
So because they were funded by anti-fish farmers, this is a bad thing? I'm not sure how more testing, and gathering more information by anyone is a bad thing, regardless of thier initial motivation. Either the science will be reproducable or it won't. All this does is provide data previously unavailable, and ask more questions that can be followed up by further studies. To some thier results are still troubling since some scientists think there is a link between PVR and HSMI which does cause damage in salmon, and that the strain seems to originate from Noraway-aka fish farms.
With research scientists, funding is always an issue, especially when it's privatly funded. You find your funding from people with common interests. In this case anti-farmers were looking for a link to the decline of cultus lake sockeye, so what?
-
You raise good points work2fish, but I’m not arguing anything. I’m suggesting Cultus Lake was chosen for sampling for political reasons and because Ms. Morton had earlier stated the CL sockeye run was failing due to a European virus … some face saving was needed so her collaborators tried to help her out. And there’s nothing wrong with that because as you said this was new information but had they included samples of cutthroat trout from Chilliwack Lake, a stock showing productivity quite opposite to Cultus, the study would have had more relevance.
Again, I'm hardly on speaking terms with these people ;D so this is just my opinion.
-
Not sure I follow your arguement. So they decided for whatever reason to sample Cultas lake, and failed to find what they were looking for in your opinion, but found PVR in cut throat, which had previously never been detected in BC fresh water. Further tests genetically linked it as 99% similar to norway strains.
So because they were funded by anti-fish farmers, this is a bad thing? I'm not sure how more testing, and gathering more information by anyone is a bad thing, regardless of thier initial motivation. Either the science will be reproducable or it won't. All this does is provide data previously unavailable, and ask more questions that can be followed up by further studies. To some thier results are still troubling since some scientists think there is a link between PVR and HSMI which does cause damage in salmon, and that the strain seems to originate from Noraway-aka fish farms.
With research scientists, funding is always an issue, especially when it's privatly funded. You find your funding from people with common interests. In this case anti-farmers were looking for a link to the decline of cultus lake sockeye, so what?
Great post!
The pro-feedlot crowd tends to react to any activity that may lead to further proof that the feedlots are killing wild salmon. Then they argue that the science being conducted is faulty and lacks credibility.
These kind of studies need to be done...... by someone. Unfortunately DFO doesn't appear to be interested in finding anything that may lead to further proof that the feedlots are killing wild salmon either.
-
Great post!
The pro-feedlot crowd tends to react to any activity that may lead to further proof that the feedlots are killing wild salmon. Then they argue that the science being conducted is faulty and lacks credibility.
These kind of studies need to be done...... by someone. Unfortunately DFO doesn't appear to be interested in finding anything that may lead to further proof that the feedlots are killing wild salmon either.
You see AF now who am I a non science guy to believe you a financial planner or Dave, Abs or Shuswap.....
-
You raise good points work2fish, but I’m not arguing anything. I’m suggesting Cultus Lake was chosen for sampling for political reasons and because Ms. Morton had earlier stated the CL sockeye run was failing due to a European virus … some face saving was needed so her collaborators tried to help her out. And there’s nothing wrong with that because as you said this was new information but had they included samples of cutthroat trout from Chilliwack Lake, a stock showing productivity quite opposite to Cultus, the study would have had more relevance.
Again, I'm hardly on speaking terms with these people ;D so this is just my opinion.
No worries, as I said I didn't get it, as it came across as there being an issue.
Good point, and that would defintily add more value to sample more lakes and have a better comparison. Hopefully someone does sample the lake. I'd assume it could always be done as follow-up work, building on thier first results.
-
The problem from my perspective is that mere presence of piscine reovirus (PRV) is getting kind of blown out of proportion. Personally, I have no issue with someone private trying to look into things like this. For instance, researchers from BC universities (i.e. UBC) are quite active in the Fraser watershed doing salmon research. I know a few of them quite well and they are very competent people who very professional in their approach. They collaborate with DFO and ENGOs like the Pacific Salmon Foundation and do good work which is transparent and defensible. In contrast, those private individuals in the anti-fish farm camp (i.e. people like Don Staniford) looking for viruses are the complete opposite, in my opinion.
The mere presence of PRV does not prove anything, but what I do have a problem with are the conclusions made afterwards which are more speculation at this point than fact. Reoviruses get their name from the respiratory and enteric orphans – meaning that they were commonly associated with the respiratory and digestive system, but not with disease. The “O” in reovirus stands for orphan – meaning they are viruses without a disease.
Suspicions of HSMI are based on one study from Palacios et al 2010 which found a link between PVR and HSMI. Soon after Ms Morton found PRV in farmed salmon purchased in stores and started calling the PRV the “heart and skeletal muscle inflammation virus” which is misleading and should have been balanced with some objectivity considering the evidence gathered to date. For instance, if you look at local evidence you will find something completely different. As I stated before on this forum, believe it or not, most healthy broiler chickens (80-90%) from the Fraser Valley would be positive for reovirus. Recent testing of 150 healthy, wild pink salmon on our coast showed no positive PCR test results the virus and no suspicious heart lesions (Saksida et al. 2012). In 2010, Dr. Gary Marty found that 75% of the farmed salmon he tested were positive for PRV, but found no signs of disease.
It is important to note that Ms Morton did not find HSMI in her samples and neither did Rick Routledge with the cutthroat trout in Cultus Lake. Just because you find a virus in the host does not necessarily mean that the host is suffering from a disease. There is a difference between a virus and a disease. You need to examine the tissues – preferably someone who is fish pathologist. Neither Morton nor Routledge did this necessary follow-up to confirm their suspicions. Neither Morton nor Routledge are fish pathologists or virologists. Viruses are actually part of a larger equation which can involve environmental conditions, individual fitness, physiological stress, etc. Fish farm critics like Morton and Staniford use “viruses” and “diseases” interchangeably - misinforming the public as a result. Thus, a positive PCR test for PRV does not mean that the host has HSMI. Morton’s findings in market sized fish may not have been in vain totally because they are good evidence that the virus was not the cause of disease in those fish. HSMI primarily affects juvenile fish. Think about…if most of them had this deadly virus they would not have survived past the juvenile stage.
Palacios, G., Lovoll, M., Tengs, T., Hornig, M., Hutchison, S., Hui, J., Kongtorp, R.T., Savji, N., Bussetti, A.V., Solovyov, A., Kristoffersen, A.B., Celone, C., Street, C., Trifonov, V., Hirschberg, D.L., Rabadan, R., Egholm, M., Rimstad, E. & Lipkin, W.I. 2010. Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation of farmed salmon is associated with infection with a novel reovirus. PloS One 5(7), e11487.
Saksida, S.M., G.D. Marty, S. St-Hilaire, S.R.M. Jones, H.A. Manchester, C.L. Diamond, and J. Bidulka. 2012. Parasites and hepatic lesions among pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum), during early seawater residence. J. Fish Dis. 35:137-151.
-
The problem from my perspective is that mere presence of piscine reovirus (PRV) is getting kind of blown out of proportion. Personally, I have no issue with someone private trying to look into things like this. For instance, researchers from BC universities (i.e. UBC) are quite active in the Fraser watershed doing salmon research. I know a few of them quite well and they are very competent people who very professional in their approach. They collaborate with DFO and ENGOs like the Pacific Salmon Foundation and do good work which is transparent and defensible. In contrast, those private individuals in the anti-fish farm camp (i.e. people like Don Staniford) looking for viruses are the complete opposite, in my opinion.
I'm not aware of any research by Don, and I'm sure like research from pro farm activists it would have to stand on it's scientific merits. Personally I don't really care where the research comes from, what their previous bias is, so long as the science is good. If it's not, it won't be reproductable, and will not become part of the "general consensus" in the scientific community.
The mere presence of PRV does not prove anything, but what I do have a problem with are the conclusions made afterwards which are more speculation at this point than fact. Reoviruses get their name from the respiratory and enteric orphans – meaning that they were commonly associated with the respiratory and digestive system, but not with disease. The “O” in reovirus stands for orphan – meaning they are viruses without a disease.
Reoviruses were first thought to be "orphaned" viruses without disease, but as scientific understanding has evolved on this, and we now know this is not necessarily the case. Just because it was once thought that these viruses were orphans without disease, doesn't mean that all viruses in the Reovirus family do not cause disease. The understanding has evolved, but the naming has not. It's not the first time an assumption has made in naming something, and the name has remained despite the fact. In general the understanding of viruses is still fairly limited in terms of their interaction on gene expression and their effect on the host, so making assumptions is always a silly endeavor, as is the incorrect assumption that reoviruses do not cause disease. Even though the word Alligator comes from the Spanish word for lizard, an alligator is still not a lizard. As an example of renoviruses causing disease, you only have to look at how a grass carp reovirus is causing severe mortality in China.
Suspicions of HSMI are based on one study from Palacios et al 2010 which found a link between PVR and HSMI. Soon after Ms Morton found PRV in farmed salmon purchased in stores and started calling the PRV the “heart and skeletal muscle inflammation virus” which is misleading and should have been balanced with some objectivity considering the evidence gathered to date. For instance, if you look at local evidence you will find something completely different. As I stated before on this forum, believe it or not, most healthy broiler chickens (80-90%) from the Fraser Valley would be positive for reovirus. Recent testing of 150 healthy, wild pink salmon on our coast showed no positive PCR test results the virus and no suspicious heart lesions (Saksida et al. 2012).
That may have been accurate a few months or years ago, as there was little understanding on the new virus, but there is more than one study that links HMSI and PRV, including this one: Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) Øystein W Finstad1*, Knut Falk2, Marie Løvoll2, Øystein Evensen3 and Espen Rimstad1
And the general concensus is that PRV is associated with HMSI, as discussed at the 14th annual meeting of national reference laboratories for fish diseases. Where the so far unpublished work of Dr. Tengs was discussed and presented by Irene Orpetveit from the National Veterinary Institute on the isolation of the renovirus by cell culture from fish, including those that show no clinical signs.
While I'm always open to the possibility of this changing based on new research, I think that's highly unlikely based on those studies and the manner in which they investigated the link, that PRV is not associated with HMSI, though the mechanism and how they relate still requires further study.
In 2010, Dr. Gary Marty found that 75% of the farmed salmon he tested were positive for PRV, but found no signs of disease.
This is not uncommon with viral infections, and does not speak to the health of the host, it's ability to fight off other diseases, or it's fitness to reproduce. It would also depend on the life cycle of the animal in question and when they are examined. It could be as simple as these fish were harvested before they developed any disease as a result of the infection. There are many factors that could account for this, since all of the fish Marty looks at are pre-spawn, and never go through the spawning phase or acclimation to freshwater. It could also be that the effect PRV has on Atlantic Salmon is different than it's effect on Pacific Salmon. So saying these fish showed no signs of disease despite testing positive for the virus is irrelevant. Look at Hep C and it's effects, and how it's quite common to not show signs of disease despite being infected with a disease causing pathogen. It also seems to be Marty's fall back line, that if there's no sign of disease, there's nothing wrong with the fish.
It is important to note that Ms Morton did not find HSMI in her samples and neither did Rick Routledge with the cutthroat trout in Cultus Lake. Just because you find a virus in the host does not necessarily mean that the host is suffering from a disease. There is a difference between a virus and a disease. You need to examine the tissues – preferably someone who is fish pathologist. Neither Morton nor Routledge did this necessary followup to confirm their suspicions. Neither Morton nor Routledge are fish pathologists or virologists. Viruses are actually part of a larger equation which can involve environmental conditions, individual fitness, physiological stress, etc. Fish farm critics like Morton and Staniford use “viruses” and “diseases” interchangeably - misinforming the public as a result. Thus, a positive PCR test for PRV does not mean that the host has HSMI. Morton’s findings in market sized fish may not have been in vain totally because they are good evidence that the virus was not the cause of disease in those fish. HSMI primarily affects juvenile fish. Think about…if most of them had this deadly virus they would not have survived past the juvenile stage.
Their study showed that cutthroat trout are infected with PRV. I don't think it was the intent of their study to show that PRV causes HMSI, or that PRV causes HMSI in cuthroat trout. The important information from their study is that PRV, which is commonly understood to be associated with HMSI, (though it may not meet your burden of proof), was found in cuthroat trout in fresh water, in a system that is experiencing issues with sockeye salmon decline. As to the effects of PRV on this system and the salmon that reproduce in this system, that is still unknown. Considering the papers that do show a link of HMSI and PRV, and that PRV has now been found in this fresh water system, it is still a possibility that PRV is in part responsible for the decline of salmon, until proven otherwise. It also still fits with the work done by Kristi Miller that showed a pre-spawn mortality signature in salmon related to an unknown viral infection effecting spawning fitness, and prespawn mortality.
While I might object the activists jumping the gun, and their overly alarmist rhetoric in general, in this case I think they may be on the right path, or at least this definitely deserves some detailed followup studies.
It also shows that fish-farms impact on wild salmon should not be discounted so easily, since the PRV that has been detected has been sequenced to be over 99% identical to Norwegian strains of the virus, making fish farms it's most likely source.
-
Very informative post work2fish. I also like your objective viewpoint.
-
Very informative post work2fish. I also like your objective viewpoint.
Thanks! ;)
-
I agree and appreciate your input work2fish. You obviously know your stuff - if you don't mind saying, what is your background? If you prefer not to answer that question that's fine too; just keep posting!
-
I agree and appreciate your input work2fish. You obviously know your stuff - if you don't mind saying, what is your background? If you prefer not to answer that question that's fine too; just keep posting!
Thanks Dave, I'll try.
I tend to try to keep my private life private, but my main focus is technology. Like most though I've worked in a variety of industries including forestry, commercial fishing, geology, project management etc.
I'm just generally curious and believe anything is learnable if you dissect until it's in small enough pieces to understand.
-
Very informative post work2fish. I also like your objective viewpoint.
Yes, thanks for this. ;D ;D
-
Personally I don't really care where the research comes from, what their previous bias is, so long as the science is good. If it's not, it won't be reproducible, and will not become part of the "general consensus" in the scientific community.
No dispute there at all.
Reoviruses were first thought to be "orphaned" viruses without disease, but as scientific understanding has evolved on this, and we now know this is not necessarily the case. Just because it was once thought that these viruses were orphans without disease, doesn't mean that all viruses in the Reovirus family do not cause disease. The understanding has evolved, but the naming has not. It's not the first time an assumption has made in naming something, and the name has remained despite the fact. In general the understanding of viruses is still fairly limited in terms of their interaction on gene expression and their effect on the host, so making assumptions is always a silly endeavor, as is the incorrect assumption that reoviruses do not cause disease. Even though the word Alligator comes from the Spanish word for lizard, an alligator is still not a lizard. As an example of renoviruses causing disease, you only have to look at how a grass carp reovirus is causing severe mortality in China.
Thanks for the information on reoviruses I was not aware of. I would not mind reading the references if you have them handy. I am open to the possibility of changing my mind also on recent discoveries of PRV in salmon here, but the work done to date by people like Ms Morton and Rick Routledge does not constitute a well thought-out approach in my opinion. All we have are PCR results with conclusions posted on blogs and some mainstream media sites as well as vague results on another website (i.e. Dept. of Wild Salmon).
Merely testing for the presence of virus does not prove disease. The two words are not interchangeable, but anti-fish farm activists (like Don Staniford) are doing just that. What I would have liked to have seen is a better plan from those that reported these local discoveries. Published findings which included methods and detailed results would have also been very helpful. This should have included actual histological work to see if disease was detected and sampling from adjacent areas like Chilliwack Lake. In addition, there is the issue between presence versus the prevalence of a pathogen so a statistically defensible sample size should also be a consideration for future work. However, despite these shortcomings the inferences about PRV and HSMI locally were still made. This included alarming the general public about the PRV getting into the water system from cleaning farmed fish at home. This was irresponsible and definitely premature given what I already mentioned.
This is not uncommon with viral infections, and does not speak to the health of the host, it's ability to fight off other diseases, or it's fitness to reproduce. It would also depend on the life cycle of the animal in question and when they are examined. It could be as simple as these fish were harvested before they developed any disease as a result of the infection. There are many factors that could account for this, since all of the fish Marty looks at are pre-spawn, and never go through the spawning phase or acclimation to freshwater. It could also be that the effect PRV has on Atlantic Salmon is different than it's effect on Pacific Salmon. So saying these fish showed no signs of disease despite testing positive for the virus is irrelevant. Look at Hep C and it's effects, and how it's quite common to not show signs of disease despite being infected with a disease causing pathogen. It also seems to be Marty's fall back line, that if there's no sign of disease, there's nothing wrong with the fish
.
That is my point. The presence of a pathogen does not mean equal the presence of a disease. There are many factors (some I already mentioned) that are more important than the pathogen itself when it comes to disease. Although her results still need to be confirmed, Dr. Kristi Miller study of ISAV in farmed Chinook (presented during the Cohen Inquiry on Dec 15, 2011) is another example of how the presence of a pathogen does not equal disease. She found that the prevalence of ISAV was the same between healthy fish and unhealthy fish. Her study was much more defensible than Ms Morton’s recent work because Dr. Miller’s viral results were linked to data from a licensed veterinarian that sampled the fish and a board-certified veterinary pathologist that examined sections of the organs under the microscope. By doing this it is much better to see if the sick fish were sick and if the healthy fish were healthy. If you ask Dr. Marty, a board certified fish pathologist, you will find out that it is not a fall back line at all. Those that do this work are experienced enough to be diligent to this level of detail. This is what people like Ms Morton and Rick Routledge need to start doing before going to the media or posting on blogs. If the work is that important then it should treated as such.
Their study showed that cutthroat trout are infected with PRV. I don't think it was the intent of their study to show that PRV causes HMSI, or that PRV causes HMSI in cuthroat trout. The important information from their study is that PRV, which is commonly understood to be associated with HMSI, (though it may not meet your burden of proof), was found in cuthroat trout in fresh water, in a system that is experiencing issues with sockeye salmon decline. As to the effects of PRV on this system and the salmon that reproduce in this system, that is still unknown. Considering the papers that do show a link of HMSI and PRV, and that PRV has now been found in this fresh water system, it is still a possibility that PRV is in part responsible for the decline of salmon, until proven otherwise. It also still fits with the work done by Kristi Miller that showed a pre-spawn mortality signature in salmon related to an unknown viral infection effecting spawning fitness, and prespawn mortality.
I disagree. I believe it was the intent of people like Ms Morton (not so much Rick Routledge) to show, inferring from their local work, that PRV causes HMSI and that only plausible explanation that this is coming from BC salmon farms. If you check out Ms Morton’s blog and the “Common Sense Canadian” website (trying to control my laughter with that name) you can see the fear that has already being generated based on the limited samples taken. Look at the poster of a mother holding her child in a supermarket on the Salmon Are Sacred website and it pretty clear what the intent was.
May not meet my burden of proof? If conclusions were limited to what they found without the alarmist remarks it would have been alright, but some anti-fish farm activists like Ms Morton or Don Staniford feel that need to get this to the blogs or press as soon as possible supersedes a well thought-out objective approach. For instance, I would have preferred to see this work done much better to see if there was indeed a connection here locally; however, all we have are positive results which are not proof on their own. It does not inspire much confidence when the fish chosen for a study of such importance are purchased from a store with no change of custody provided, no sampling methodology provided and no evidence of any tissue sampling (which is required to see if HSMI is indeed present).
While I might object the activists jumping the gun, and their overly alarmist rhetoric in general, in this case I think they may be on the right path, or at least this definitely deserves some detailed followup studies.
It also shows that fish-farms impact on wild salmon should not be discounted so easily, since the PRV that has been detected has been sequenced to be over 99% identical to Norwegian strains of the virus, making fish farms it's most likely source.
While I agree that being able to document the presence of PRV is not a bad thing and deserves some detailed follow-up, I disagree with the assertion of them being on the right path. The reason I say this is based on what I just said above. I do not see much professionalism and objectivity from anti-fish farm activists. They need to put together a better study design which includes: rationale, sampling protocols (using accepted techniques), sample size to address their hypothesis and biosecurity measures taken to prevent contamination. I am aware that the PRV found here was 99% identical to Norwegian strains; however, I also know that it was Dr. Miller’s opinion that the ISAV sequences that she found in preserved samples that she retested using a different primer could have been present in our waters for as long as 25 years or more – long before salmon farms even began in BC. Despite this, fish farm activists contend that ISAV here must also be of foreign origin. Given what we know about ISAV alone, I think it is premature to say that BC fish farms are the most likely source of PRV. Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful contribution, work2fish.
-
Sorry it's not my job to educate you. The papers are readily available to anyone on the internet. You could also try subscribing to a few journals if you're really interested, and besides, while you may lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. I'm also not interested in arguing the merits of pro or anti-fish farmers. For the most part they both need a good bath with soap and a fire hose.
As for the rest of your arguments, most of what you're saying about disease is irrelevant to this discussion, or like your previous statements on reoviruses just plain wrong. The rest is just rhetoric about Don and Morton, and Routlage, and not worth the time to address. Yes, they are not my favorite researchers either, but neither is a government lab that has failed to find anything, and litterally has no suspects into the decline of CL sockeye. Again, it's irrelevant. The relevant facts are:
1. Routlage found PRV in cultas lake sockeye.
2. While PRV still needs to be isolated in cell culture, it has been linked as the most plausible cause of HMSI, by well respected and highly published biologists that have nothing to do with Morton et al. Here's your homework, go read: "Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation", the authors names are in my previous post if you have issues finding it. Spoiler alert, the title gives away the story.
3. PRV was sequenced to be more than 99% similar to Norwegien strains of the virus. According to your own post, Marty found it in 75% of farmed salmon tested. Sorry I didn't vet this source, I'll take your word for it.
4. The only source of Norwegian virus (or the most likely source, outside of aliens, act of god, or other) is the Norwegian fish farms. I doubt it swam here on it's own.
5. If a=b and a=c then b=c, or if PRV has been found in CL, and the PRV is from Norway, and fish farms stock is Norwegian in origin, then fish farms are the most likely source of PRV in cultas lake.
6. Just because something is infected with a virus and shows no obvious signs of disease, does not mean it is fitness to reproduce is not compromised. Until tests are done that show no effect on spawning fitness, this cannot be ruled out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why Marty's reasoning that no obvious signs of disease = no problem is flawed logic.
7. PRV has now been shown to be exposed to the CL Sockeye from both freshwater and saltwater sources, freshwater- due to the infected cutthroat trout (thanks again Routlage), which may be a simple reservoir for the disease, (though virology of the pathogen has not been studied in depth in this animal, and it may be more than a reservoir), and fish farms effecting both sides of their ocean migrations.
8. As you stated previously: "HSMI primarily affects juvenile fish. Think about…if most of them had this deadly virus they would not have survived past the juvenile stage." even if this is true, and HMSI only effects juvenile fish which has not been proved, (otherwise please point me to a study showing it only effects juvenile fish, or even a study on PRV's Virulence), we now know the cultas lake sockeye can be exposed to the virus through resident trout, and on outward migration as they swim past the farms. Even if it only effects juvenile fish, as you stated if most of them had this virus, they would not survive past this stage, though there is no research to support this hypothesis.
9. Until a study has been done on the virology of PRV, and how it relates to sockeye's fitness to reproduce and survive from egg to adult, it cannot be ruled out as a cause of the decline in sockeye salmon in Cultas lake, since it's now known that sockeye are exposed to the virus at all life stages.
Best bet would be for someone to do follow-up analysis on Millar's samples that showed the genetic signature for pre-spawn mortality. Hopefully her or someone like her is doing something like a Random Multiplex (RT)-PCR to try to determine the pathogen or pathogens responsible for the signature, and the most likely cause of the sockeye decline. They have a signature, they have samples, all that's required is to isolate the pathogen producing the signature, and they have the smoking gun.
-
I am aware that the PRV found here was 99% identical to Norwegian strains; however, I also know that it was Dr. Miller’s opinion that the ISAV sequences that she found in preserved samples that she retested using a different primer could have been present in our waters for as long as 25 years or more – long before salmon farms even began in BC. Despite this, fish farm activists contend that ISAV here must also be of foreign origin.
Salmon feedlots have been here closer to 30 years, about 10 years before Fraser sockeye salmon productivity dropped drasticly.
-
Salmon feedlots have been here closer to 30 years, about 10 years before Fraser sockeye salmon productivity dropped drastically.
So what?
It doesn't mean they haven't or are not having an effect. We don't know when PRV came from Norway, or even if it is the virus causing the pre-spawn mortality signature in Sockeye.
Until we know exactly what pathogen or group of pathogens are responsible for the pre-spawn mortality signature in these fish, anything else is speculation. The fish farms are a possible source, or at least a possible source of amplification of the virus(es) responsible, and should not be discounted so easily.
-
So what?
So we should turn a blind eye to the fish farms and stall till the wild salmon are gone?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the steady decline, other than a one off year, or consider it serious.
-
So we should turn a blind eye to the fish farms and stall till the wild salmon are gone?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the steady decline, other than a one off year, or consider it serious.
You seem to be arguing with yourself. In one post you say "Salmon feedlots have been here closer to 30 years, about 10 years before Fraser sockeye salmon productivity dropped drastically. " implying feedlots have had no effect, and in the next you're implying they they are responsible, asking if we should turn a blind eye until wild salmon are gone.
I consider the decline serious, and I'm not saying they are not a possible cause, or contributing factor, but there is not enough evidence to prove it yet. Though it is a good hypothesis.
Yes I think the precautionary principle should have been applied, and they shouldn't be in the ocean on migration routes of wild salmon, but unless the government is willing to force their removal, nothing will get done. If research is done that shows a definite link, then government would have a valid reason for their removal or movement, until then chances are nothing will be done.
-
Salmon feedlots have been here closer to 30 years, about 10 years before Fraser sockeye salmon productivity dropped drastically.
Sorry curious I misinterpreted your meaning from this as an argument discounting the link between farming and the decline, not in response to this:
[/quote]I am aware that the PRV found here was 99% identical to Norwegian strains; however, I also know that it was Dr. Miller’s opinion that the ISAV sequences that she found in preserved samples that she retested using a different primer could have been present in our waters for as long as 25 years or more – long before salmon farms even began in BC. Despite this, fish farm activists contend that ISAV here must also be of foreign origin.[/quote]
ISAV, and the premature conclusion that Morton made that it was responsible for the decline of salmon is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion on PRV, though until virulence studies have been done we can't discount the possibility that it is acting in concert with PRV or another organism adding to the decline in sockeye salmon. Anti fish farm proponents may contend it originates from Norway, like the more virulent strains that decimated the farming industry in Chile, but that hasn't been proven and is unlikely based on Millar's work. Until the entire DNA sequence is analyzed and compared to the other strains, making a guess on origin or time of origin is also premature.
-
Yes, they are not my favorite researchers either, but neither is a government lab that has failed to find anything, and litterally has no suspects into the decline of CL sockeye.
I've been away from this issue for a while but the general concensus among respected scientists was Cultus Lake sockeye populations started crashing when overharvested as by catch during the once huge Weaver Creek sockeye fishery - that's certainly when staff at the Cultus Lake Laboratory started noticing the declination. Combined with early entry into freshwater, exacerbating a kidney parasite called Parvicapsula minibicornis, degradation of spawning habitat at Lindell Beach and winter month predation by Northern Pikeminnow and those same cutthroat found to have PRV, decimated this population to the point where hatchery intervention now is the only reason these fish still exist.
Again, many of these questions would have been answered had Chilliwack Lake cutthroat been sampled … Orr and Routledge would have had their ‘smoking gun’ if those cutthroat were PRV free and we would probably not be discussing this if they were found to have PRV.
I'm surprised and curious why these fish weren't sampled at the same time.
-
I've been away from this issue for a while but the general concensus among respected scientists was Cultus Lake sockeye populations started crashing when overharvested as by catch during the once huge Weaver Creek sockeye fishery - that's certainly when staff at the Cultus Lake Laboratory started noticing the declination. Combined with early entry into freshwater, exacerbating a kidney parasite called Parvicapsula minibicornis, degradation of spawning habitat at Lindell Beach and winter month predation by Northern Pikeminnow and those same cutthroat found to have PRV, decimated this population to the point where hatchery intervention now is the only reason these fish still exist.
Again, many of these questions would have been answered had Chilliwack Lake cutthroat been sampled … Orr and Routledge would have had their ‘smoking gun’ if those cutthroat were PRV free and we would probably not be discussing this if they were found to have PRV.
I'm surprised and curious why these fish weren't sampled at the same time.
I'm more surprised and curious why he's the first researcher to sample and test either population.
Even if both populations are infected with PRV, until we know more about he virulence of PRV, speculating that it couldn't be the cause even if both populations are infected is just that speculation. It might be the combination of several factors increases the virulence of the pathogen.
-
Until we have learned more about the virus the hypothesis that it is of fish farm and specifically Norwegian origin and that it is related to the decline in sockeye numbers also remains speculation.
We have no shortage of valid hypotheses to explain the decline. The debate as it currently exists contributes nothing toward finding the answer.
-
work2fish,
Although I do not agree with everyone on this forum, I am always open to hear different points of view and have been willing to share information to those that seem to be genuinely interested, knowledgeable and respectful. For instance, I sent a particular member on this forum a couple of papers already on something somewhat related to what we are talking about. I was not looking to you to educate me; however, I was interested in understanding your point of view, so that I might learn something myself. Although I like to think of myself as an educated person there is always something to learn which I did not know before. I was trying to remain open to your views.
The only times I get to browse the forums these days seems to be late at night (my child demands my attentions when she is awake). Along with my work taking me out of town lately (some of the places I go to have limited or no internet) I do not get much time to just go hunting around on the internet. I did not feel the need at the time to provide you an insight of my day in order to explain why I asked you, so I just left that alone. I like to hunt for this sort of stuff myself, but I thought that if you had those particular papers handy it could save me the time in finding them myself. Sometimes only the abstract is easily found, so I was hoping you had the whole document. I asked nicely; however, if it presented a great burden to you I apologize for even asking.
I disagree with your assertion that what I am saying about disease is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, what I have been saying about the difference between viruses and diseases is foundational to the whole discussion. Just because a fish has PRV does not necessarily mean that it will develop HSMI. Dr. Marty did find PRV in 75% of farm fish tested, but he did not find HSMI. Actually your prior description on how a person like Dr. Marty goes about this testing is not accurate. You make a few assumptions which could have been cleared up if you looked into it further. If you look into it, farm fish carcasses to be sampled are those that have grown well prior to death and have red or pink gills for the most part. These are fish that have recently died which may or may not have disease. These fish provide the best diagnostic value to people like Dr. Marty because it is more than likely if disease is present it will be in these particular fish. In addition, it is probably the most representative sample of robust fish on a farm without sampling every single fish. Samples are taken for a variety of tests which include histopathology, bacteriology and virology. Despite what you might believe, the diagnostic testing is quite rigorous and follows accredited techniques. They do not get out a dissecting kit, cut open the fish and look with their naked eyes and say a simple “yes” or “no” to the presence of disease and then move on to the next fish. In addition, it is not just one sign that determines the presence of a disease – it could more than two that are needed to make that determination (this is what many anti-fish farm activists do not understand). To my knowledge, HSMI has never been detected in BC fish farms. I can go into more of this in depth and provide some references, but I do not think it is my job to educate you either. Sorry, but I am not feeling very motivated to exchange additional information considering your condescending remarks in your last post (which included “Here's your homework”. That was a very classy remark).
As for bringing up the activists, you did this in your second post and I responded with my opinion. In addition, the thread is technically about Don Staniford and relates to his trial win as well as his views. The rhetoric is being spread by people like Don Staniford and Ms Morton. Even you mentioned that the work should be reproducible. Well, if you go to where these conclusions are coming from you will not find any details which satisfy this. The results are sometimes posted, the methods used are virtually non-existent, and the conclusions are often misleading. If people like that want to be taken seriously for doing this important work then they need to act seriously which I am sure you agree with. If you do not wish to address this I can respect that, but I will not be restrained by the same bounds considering these two individuals have openly criticized government scientists and their professionalism. In my opinion, it is totally relevant to the discussion in this thread.
-
I would like to finish off by addressing your relevant facts:
1. Routlage found PRV in Cultus lake sockeye.
Are you certain about this fact? Could you be talking about cutthroat trout?
2. While PRV still needs to be isolated in cell culture, it has been linked as the most plausible cause of HMSI, by well respected and highly published biologists that have nothing to do with Morton et al. Here's your homework, go read: "Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation", the authors names are in my previous post if you have issues finding it. Spoiler alert, the title gives away the story.
I do not doubt what you found and the science behind it, but if you read the paper like I have you will notice that there might be some factors which do not allow the disease to develop on BC fish farms. Perhaps how fish husbandry is conducted in BC aquaculture is a factor – I am not sure. The authors explicitly state that PRV can be quite common in fish farms that have Atlantic Salmon and that the detection of PRV alone does not establish the presence of HSMI. I cannot ignore what Dr. Saksida and Dr. Marty have found locally or what Routledge and Morton failed to find (i.e. HSMI). Despite this I do concede that the association appears to be very plausible according to this study. I learned something that I did not know before and I appreciate you sharing it.
3. PRV was sequenced to be more than 99% similar to Norwegian strains of the virus. According to your own post, Marty found it in 75% of farmed salmon tested. Sorry I didn't vet this source, I'll take your word for it.
4. The only source of Norwegian virus (or the most likely source, outside of aliens, act of god, or other) is the Norwegian fish farms. I doubt it swam here on it's own.
5. If a=b and a=c then b=c, or if PRV has been found in CL, and the PRV is from Norway, and fish farms stock is Norwegian in origin, then fish farms are the most likely source of PRV in cultas lake.
I suggest to you that you are taking bits and pieces of media headlines to form these opinions; however, if you look at the actual facts of this you might have a slightly different view. The reporting of this PRV viral sequence is fairly recent (2010) and has not been officially described or seen using electron microscopy so there is very little information on the how long it has been here or where it came from. If it were to be discovered in BC first then Norway would be saying it was 99% BC strain. Merely saying that the BC and Norway strains are 99% identical does not tell us where this originated. Viruses do not come out of thin air – they come from the wild (as do many pathogens). However, the role of farms spreading PRV is unknown, so I agree that should be looked at more – specifically looking at wild fish. I used the ISAV work by Dr. Miller as example of how much we still do not know and the gaps that remain in our knowledge about the impact of pathogens on the survival of wild salmon off our coast. You will find that most of these studies on pathogens in BC have been done on farm fish and at hatcheries. Given these gaps (which were presented at the Cohen Inquiry) I believe it is premature at this point to making any conclusions in this regard as to the source of viruses like PRV. Again, I would like to provide you references for this, but it is not my job to educate you.
6. Just because something is infected with a virus and shows no obvious signs of disease, does not mean it is fitness to reproduce is not compromised. Until tests are done that show no effect on spawning fitness, this cannot be ruled out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why Marty's reasoning that no obvious signs of disease = no problem is flawed logic
I believe you have totally misinterpreted Dr. Marty in this regard. He does not say “no obvious signs of disease = no problem”. He is talking about the presence of disease – not that the fish is not affected in some other way. He is not saying fitness is unaffected. I agree with you that an effect on spawning fitness cannot be ruled out and should be investigated, specifically in wild fish. However, PRV seems to be very common in Atlantic Salmon and does not appear to be a great threat to their health in BC fish farms at least. You do not have to take my word for this. If you disagree with this then go find out for yourself like I did.
7. PRV has now been shown to be exposed to the CL Sockeye from both freshwater and saltwater sources, freshwater- due to the infected cutthroat trout (thanks again Routlage), which may be a simple reservoir for the disease, (though virology of the pathogen has not been studied in depth in this animal, and it may be more than a reservoir), and fish farms effecting both sides of their ocean migrations.
How is PRV that has been detected in some freshwater specimens of cutthroat trout and on BC fish farms “effecting” Cultus Lake Sockeye on both sides of their ocean migrations? Do you care to expand on this recent discovery for me please? Are you suggesting that PRV is spreading horizontally from cutthroat to juvenile Sockeye in the lake? If so, how do you know this?
8. As you stated previously: "HSMI primarily affects juvenile fish. Think about…if most of them had this deadly virus they would not have survived past the juvenile stage." even if this is true, and HMSI only effects juvenile fish which has not been proved, (otherwise please point me to a study showing it only effects juvenile fish, or even a study on PRV's Virulence), we now know the cultas lake sockeye can be exposed to the virus through resident trout, and on outward migration as they swim past the farms. Even if it only effects juvenile fish, as you stated if most of them had this virus, they would not survive past this stage, though there is no research to support this hypothesis.
Actually there is research to support this. It was an accidental oversight on my part to not include the reference in my previous post. I apologize for that; but given your recent remarks I will have to decline being open to showing you what I have. However, if you read Finstad et al 2012 closely it might lead you in the right direction. You can either choose to believe me or not. At this point of the discussion with you I am indifferent. I wish I did not feel that way, but I do.
9. Until a study has been done on the virology of PRV, and how it relates to sockeye's fitness to reproduce and survive from egg to adult, it cannot be ruled out as a cause of the decline in sockeye salmon in Cultas lake, since it's now known that sockeye are exposed to the virus at all life stages.
Well, before we put the cart before the horse we would first have to find PRV in Cultus Sockeye before we can see how it relates to fitness to reproduce and survive from egg to adult. It would also have to be put into context with other things impacting Cultus Lake Sockeye. There are members on this forum with more specific knowledge about Cultus Lake Sockeye so I will defer to them. However, I do agree with you that work on this should be considered. No argument there.
-
Sorry curious I misinterpreted your meaning from this as an argument discounting the link between farming and the decline, not in response to this:
I am aware that the PRV found here was 99% identical to Norwegian strains; however, I also know that it was Dr. Miller’s opinion that the ISAV sequences that she found in preserved samples that she retested using a different primer could have been present in our waters for as long as 25 years or more – long before salmon farms even began in BC. Despite this, fish farm activists contend that ISAV here must also be of foreign origin.
No problem work2fish. I'm happy that you got the correct meaning